60 C. siwoesy on Caricography. 
eculiar position. It was in this position iat 1 first saw the 
ecies. 
Mountains of New Mexico, Wright ; Mountains of Texas Mr. Buckley. 
Neither the species nor variety before found in our ¢ ntry. 
Remarks and Corrections. 
C. monticola, vol. xxxi, 1851, is C. triquetra, Boott, in Trans. Lin . Soe.; 
though it seemed to differ too much from his description, and was evi- 
dently new. See vol, xxxiii, 1862. 
‘Wrightii, vol. xxxi, 1861, differs so much in its spikes and fruit 
from the descripti on of C, microdonta, Tor. Mon., a stranger to me, that 
I look for more means of comparison. 
The same remarks are true of C, Nebraskensis, vol. xviii, 1854, held by 
Dr. Boott to be C. Jamesii, Tor.; though I hope it me prove to be the 
plant Fania! in honor g an old friend, “Dr. ame 
. laevi-conica, vol. xxiv, 1857, with fruit Neate and long-conie, en- 
tirely smooth and Nien seems too far removed from a species whi ich 
has broad conic ate with Log to be called a variety of C. tri- 
chocarpa, Muhl.: t’s Ilust. 42. 
hurberi, a xxxi, 1861, called C. hystricina by Dr. Boott, though 
it appeared too different, will probably come under that species in its en- 
larged characters. 
J, Haydenii, vol. Xvili, 1854, is too far rane from any specimens of 
C. aperta, Boott, that I have seen; so that it is properly renamed, if it is 
C. aperta, Carey. 
C. riparia, Curtis. C. lacustris, Willd., var. laxiflora, Dew. 
minate spikes 5-6, the highest and lowest longer than the others, 
ali slender eylindric ; pistillate ‘spikes 3-4, long and loose-flowered for 
. Hayd 
ough C. lacustris was said by Schk. to hs very like the preceding, 
C. Tart the two have not been alee generally in our country because 
simens were found to suit one or the other description, As many 
— in New England answered entirely the deseription of C. ri | 
of pe, a point now admitted, as well as of C. lacustris; both b 
the same. See Boott’s Illust., p. 112, right column. 
TRS SSS DS EE pa ee eee ee emer ere 
